4 ms·

>Seems like there is a real opportunity to increase EV adoption through some level of government subsidy. If all of the claimed benefits of EVs are real (bette

>Seems like there is a real opportunity to increase EV adoption through some level of government subsidy. If all of the claimed benefits of EVs are real (better for the environment, simpler and cheaper to maintain), why should we subsidize them at all? Perhaps we tax ICE vehicles based on emissions, but spending tax money to encourage people to buy more vehicles seems like an odd policy. EVs are cleaner, but they aren't clean, and cars in general have externalities.

blandflakes 6y ago
We could at least stop subsidizing ICE, then.
sp332 6y ago
Subsidizing them will make the cost of new EV cars more competitive with used ICE cars, which is what someone is much more likely to buy now. Also, subsidizing car sales indirectly funds development of more attractive EV car tech, which will increase people's desire to buy them in the next few years instead of having to wait decades for their personal killer feature.
kewrkewm53 6y ago
Taxing ICE vehicles hurts poor people who can't afford buying new EV even with subsidies, while subsidizing EV's doesn't. So I would argue it's more sustainable from a social perspective than a punitive tax. Eventually used EV's will end up being bought by poorer folks as well, as long as the wealthy buy them first. Besides, nothing you buy is exactly clean. At least vehicles provide real value by allowing people to move around, unlike your average cheap fashion item which is bought because some people just enjoy shopping, and soon forgotten after minimum use. Thus, typically purchasing a car is ethical compared to purchasing something you really don't need.
- maherbeg 6y ago
  Tax ICE luxury cars. If you're purchasing a $50k vehicle, then you likely could afford a tax that subsidizes non-luxury EV vehicles.
- anonuser123456 6y ago
  > So I would argue it's more sustainable from a social perspective than a punitive tax Then keep the tax, transfer income and let substitution effects drive preferences. It’s important to not let social issues get in the way of good policy. Solve the social issue independently (e.g. income transfers in this case).
- itsoktocry 6y ago
  >Taxing ICE vehicles hurts poor people who can't afford buying new EV even with subsidies, while subsidizing EV's doesn't. This is debatable. A dollar subsidy given for (expensive) EVs is a dollar not able to subsidize something that can directly benefit the poor (say, housing). In other words, resources are scarce. >Besides, nothing you buy is exactly clean. I agree, which is why we should impose costs on the things that are not clean, like cars, generally. Economics 101 says when you subsidize some behaviour, you get more of it. Do we want more cars, or fewer? Personally, I think (thanks mostly to Tesla) EVs are past the point of of skepticism. They've become desirable.

blandflakes 6y ago

We could at least stop subsidizing ICE, then.

sp332 6y ago

Subsidizing them will make the cost of new EV cars more competitive with used ICE cars, which is what someone is much more likely to buy now. Also, subsidizing car sales indirectly funds development of more attractive EV car tech, which will increase people's desire to buy them in the next few years instead of having to wait decades for their personal killer feature.

kewrkewm53 6y ago

Taxing ICE vehicles hurts poor people who can't afford buying new EV even with subsidies, while subsidizing EV's doesn't. So I would argue it's more sustainable from a social perspective than a punitive tax. Eventually used EV's will end up being bought by poorer folks as well, as long as the wealthy buy them first. Besides, nothing you buy is exactly clean. At least vehicles provide real value by allowing people to move around, unlike your average cheap fashion item which is bought because some people just enjoy shopping, and soon forgotten after minimum use. Thus, typically purchasing a car is ethical compared to purchasing something you really don't need.

maherbeg 6y ago
Tax ICE luxury cars. If you're purchasing a $50k vehicle, then you likely could afford a tax that subsidizes non-luxury EV vehicles.
anonuser123456 6y ago
> So I would argue it's more sustainable from a social perspective than a punitive tax Then keep the tax, transfer income and let substitution effects drive preferences. It’s important to not let social issues get in the way of good policy. Solve the social issue independently (e.g. income transfers in this case).
itsoktocry 6y ago
>Taxing ICE vehicles hurts poor people who can't afford buying new EV even with subsidies, while subsidizing EV's doesn't. This is debatable. A dollar subsidy given for (expensive) EVs is a dollar not able to subsidize something that can directly benefit the poor (say, housing). In other words, resources are scarce. >Besides, nothing you buy is exactly clean. I agree, which is why we should impose costs on the things that are not clean, like cars, generally. Economics 101 says when you subsidize some behaviour, you get more of it. Do we want more cars, or fewer? Personally, I think (thanks mostly to Tesla) EVs are past the point of of skepticism. They've become desirable.